Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

Nice vids.

[ElAurens]

An airccraft built to an 8 G structural limit is built to take that amount of stress, no matter if it is wood, aluminum or paper.

A wooden aircraft can be built to take the same G loading as a metal one, but typically the metal (aluminum) one will be of lighter weight, and have better protection from environmentl degredation.

But like I said, an 8 G airplane is an 8 G airplane, regardless of construction material.

And no, the Japanese did not build many wooden combat aircraft at all.

None of the major types were.

[BadAim]

One must, it appears, use caution in disparaging wooden aircraft when there are Brits around.

I must point out also that the Zero did have a wooden radio mast.

[BadAim]

Nice Vids Nearmiss. There is little doubt that the Mossie is one of the most beautiful and versatile aircraft to come out of WWII, unless of course your a WWII German intent an a nice quiet unmolested occupation of Europe. It might not be so impressive then.

[TheGrunch]

If you want to see an excellent fighter made of wood...note the sentence where it says "The two wing spars were redesigned to withstand a higher safety factor of 10 versus 8."
Or from the fantastic Hornet & Sea Hornet construction website:
"The difficulty was increased by the fact that a safety factor of 10 was needed, a requirement that could not be met by the construction used in the Mosquito (which had a factor of 8 ) owing to the bulk of the additional material that would be needed to give the greater strength. At the same time, in order to avoid a complete changeover of production technique with consequent reorganization and inevitable delays in the shops, it was desired to make use of the Mosquito type of construction to as great an extent as possible.
The outcome of these conflicting requirements is a wing structure based upon the general principle of using metal to carry tensile loads and wood for compression and shear stresses."
Aircraft are designed to meet a particular safety factor, it's not that one material is better or worse, it's just a matter of finding the right materials for the right areas. Wood is better at compressive and aluminium better at tensile loads. Note how the lower wing and aileron skins are made of Alclad and how the tail section is all-metal, yet the remainder of the aircraft is largely of balsa-plywood sandwich construction.

[Adwark]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

An airccraft built to an 8 G structural limit is built to take that amount of stress, no matter if it is wood, aluminum or paper.

A wooden aircraft can be built to take the same G loading as a metal one, but typically the metal (aluminum) one will be of lighter weight, and have better protection from environmentl degredation.

But like I said, an 8 G airplane is an 8 G airplane, regardless of construction material.

You are right. 8G plane is 8G plane and not important is it a wood or metal, if you flying with recommended limitation. But situation was changed, if you for example, drop bombs in diving or have a bullet damages. In this case your plane material of strengths is very important, because earlier collapsed wood construction. Wood is fragile material and under overpressure it breaking. Metal is a viscous material and it was deformed, but not breaking. For example, Ju-88 has a full metal construction, but in real life doesn't used like a diving bomber, because its construction deformed after short time. If Ju-88 has a wood construction, he was be a single time diving bomber .

[Ernst]

Ok. Reformulating question! Will it all fighter aircraft with standard loadouts have the same g loading limits or will it differ based in its "overall" structure and construction in new 4.10?

I not sayed nothing about materials anymore.

[AndyJWest]

Wood is fragile material and under overpressure it breaking. Metal is a viscous material and it was deformed, but not breaking.

This simply isn't true, Adwark. Or at least, it isn't true in the context of aircraft construction. If you overstress an airframe it may deform, or it may break up, depending on the particular circumstances, but there is nothing inherent in the properties of a properly-designed wooden structure that makes break-up more likely. In fact a properly-bonded wooden structure may do better than a rivited metal airframe in this context.

Modern aircraft construction is making increasing use of composites, which have more in common with wood in terms of structural properties than they do with metals - wood is a 'natural composite', the result of millions of years of natural selection.

As for wood being 'a fragile material', have you ever seen what happens if you drive a car into a tree?

[robday]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Ok. Reformulating question! Will it all fighter aircraft with standard loadouts have the same g loading limits or will it differ based in its "overall" structure and construction in new 4.10?

I not sayed nothing about materials anymore.

It seems to me, from all the posts on this subject that I have seen, that each aircraft will have it's own unique G limit, based upon it's real life value, and that this limit will vary according to wether the aircraft is loaded with various amounts of ordnance or is unloaded

[Adwark]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

This simply isn't true, Adwark. Or at least, it isn't true in the context of aircraft construction. If you overstress an airframe it may deform, or it may break up, depending on the particular circumstances, but there is nothing inherent in the properties of a properly-designed wooden structure that makes break-up more likely. In fact a properly-bonded wooden structure may do better than a rivited metal airframe in this context.

Can you show me please source where this is written?

Modern aircraft construction is making increasing use of composites, which have more in common with wood in terms of structural properties than they do with metals - wood is a 'natural composite', the result of millions of years of natural selection.

You was right about present time composite materials. But I was speaking about WW2 aircrafts and materials. Please read my post #774. I was only doesn't know is exist equal book in English.

As for wood being 'a fragile material', have you ever seen what happens if you drive a car into a tree?

Aircrafts wasn't a trees. They are flying.